The burning of the Islamic holy book in Denmark has stirred outrage in Muslim-majority nations. Critics of the Quran burning law say it would undermine liberal freedoms in the Scandanavian country.
People keep arguing from first principles as if politics is an abstract question to be solved by correct application of moral reasoning.
I am not talking about Islam in general. I am not interested in that discussion. I am not talking about abstract ideas. I do not care for top down idealism, I care for bottom up pragmatism.
In empirical practice, in our times and in these societies that we live in, this act has consistently increased the level of animosity, has incited violence, and is specifically being used to do those things on purpose. A democratic society can decide to put reasonable limits to it to protect peace and order. The fact that it remains a democratic society means that it retains its right to undo these limits at an appropriate time if it judges them to be hurtful or useless.
Different than what? The law doesn’t single out Islam, it makes it illegal to publicly burn any religious text.
“Is Islam different”, such a weird question. As if there is one single “Islam”? And as if there is nothing unique about it, like what, are all religions interchangeable like Coca-Cola and Pepsi? This is an entirely pointless question. Unless you’re trying to tease out if I’m an extremist, either an islamophobe or an Islamist? In which case, ask your question directly, I guess?
I reject however your framing as an association of Islam with violence. I reject the framing of making it about an entire religion. The framing I’m choosing is one of social peace and what endangers it.
People keep arguing from first principles as if politics is an abstract question to be solved by correct application of moral reasoning.
I am not talking about Islam in general. I am not interested in that discussion. I am not talking about abstract ideas. I do not care for top down idealism, I care for bottom up pragmatism.
In empirical practice, in our times and in these societies that we live in, this act has consistently increased the level of animosity, has incited violence, and is specifically being used to do those things on purpose. A democratic society can decide to put reasonable limits to it to protect peace and order. The fact that it remains a democratic society means that it retains its right to undo these limits at an appropriate time if it judges them to be hurtful or useless.
Trust democracy.
Different than what? The law doesn’t single out Islam, it makes it illegal to publicly burn any religious text.
“Is Islam different”, such a weird question. As if there is one single “Islam”? And as if there is nothing unique about it, like what, are all religions interchangeable like Coca-Cola and Pepsi? This is an entirely pointless question. Unless you’re trying to tease out if I’m an extremist, either an islamophobe or an Islamist? In which case, ask your question directly, I guess?
I asked why you associate blasphemy against islam with violence and you are working really hard to not answer the question.
April 2023 riots in Sweden.
I reject however your framing as an association of Islam with violence. I reject the framing of making it about an entire religion. The framing I’m choosing is one of social peace and what endangers it.
Do you need me to repeat it again?